Email this article to a friend

I'm a recovering Russiagate addict. Not so long ago, I awaited the latest Russiagate tweet from Seth Abramson as eagerly as a new installment of Serial. These days, I roll my eyes and scroll on.

I’m not a skeptic. I don’t doubt that Russia hacked the Clinton campaign, trolled social media or attempted to access election machines. This is entirely consistent with what we know of Russia, which, according to a 2017 Newsweekinvestigation, hacked both the McCain and Obama campaigns in 2008 and has continued phishing attacks on U.S. officials and politicians ever since, accessing the Joint Chiefs of Staff email system in 2015. Nor is Russia a newcomer to online manipulation. A former employee of Russia’s “troll factory”—the Internet Research Center in St. Petersburg—told NPR of creating fake social media accounts in 2014 to sow discord in the United States.

Nor would I be surprised if Donald Trump made backroom deals with Russia. Trump has never met an oligarch he didn’t want to do business with, including one described by a U.S. diplomat as “notoriously corrupt, even for Azerbaijan.”

What I question is the proportion of Russiagate coverage and amount of hope that liberals vest in it. In July and August, the New York Times ran 16 front-page stories about Russia and Rachel Maddow discussed it in 30 episodes of her MSNBC show. The Times also ran a breathless 12-page special report in Septemberthat calls Russia’s 2016 cyber-meddling “unprecedented”—ignoring the many precedents. Much of this reporting focused on the minutiae of the Mueller investigation.

Ultimately, the front page of the Times is limited real estate, and devoting it to Russiagate sidelines other Trump administration scandals unfolding in real time. During July and August, the National Labor Relations Board laid plans to restrict union organizing, the Department of Defense successfully lobbied for a $716 billion budget, and the Office of Management and Budget moved to penalize immigrants who use welfare. None of these stories made the front page.

What also galls is that the media focus on Russian influence contains a whiff of self-absolution. Recall that, as of March 2016, the Trump campaign had received $1.9 billion in free press, according to media firm SMG Delta; the next-highest was Hillary Clinton at $746 million. Les Moonves, then-chief of CBS, joked that Trump’s candidacy “may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.” The campaign invested little in ground operations or advertising. Would it have taken off without the media’s help?

Of course, the media cannot be separated from its eager consumers. Many of us wish to wake up from the nightmare of November 2016. The Mueller investigation, with its Watergate parallels, seems to offer that hope.

But here lies another, subtler danger of Russiagate. The fantasy of Mueller as savior relies on an inherent faith in the system. The wheels of justice are turning; we need only sit back and wait, and the aberration will be corrected.

But what if 2016 was no aberration? What if something is rotten in U.S. democracy? One clear sign is the dismal voter participation: 56 percent in the presidential race, 10 to 30 points lower than recent turnouts in much of Europe. To isolate Russia’s influence is to ignore long-gathering storms: the Republican suppression of the vote; the Democratic establishment’s failure to field a candidate who could credibly speak to growing rage over inequality and endless war; the misogyny and xenophobia that Trump was able to exploit; and the widespread disillusionment with our political system that made voting for Trump—or staying home—an attractive “fuck you” move.

In an election decided by 77,744 votes in three states, almost anything can be said to have tipped it. Our democracy should be healthy enough to stand up to Russia’s predictable, often ham-handed meddling. (How much sway should a “Hillary is Satan” Facebook post really have over public discourse?) To properly inoculate ourselves may mean something indeed unprecedented: insistent organizing for transformational change, whether that’s the public financing of elections, the restructuring of our political system for real participatory democracy or the fundamental redistribution of wealth and power. One crucial piece of any of this is a responsible and responsive media.

Help In These Times Continue Publishing

Progressive journalism is needed now more than ever, and In These Times needs you.

Jessica Stites is Executive Editor of In These Times, where she runs the Leonard C. Goodman Institute for Investigative Reporting and edits stories on labor, neoliberalism, Wall Street, immigration, mass incarceration and racial justice, among other topics. Before joining ITT, she worked at Ms. magazine and George Lakoff's Rockridge Institute. Her writing has been published in the Los Angeles Review of Books, Ms., Bitch, Jezebel, The Advocate and AlterNet. She is board secretary of the Chicago Reader and a former Chicago Sun-Times board member.

I am bringing in $10000 monthly and you can also do the same. In company work you dont have that freedom which you need, therefore office job really sucks. On the other hand in Internet income, you have the freedom to enjoy your time with all your family members anytime you prefer and also go on trip abroad with them any month you prefer. Read more on following page LEGSUTS.TUMBLR.COM

Posted by Samira G. Underwood on 2018-11-04 06:59:13

This article would have come across better had it's writer not implied that she thinks 13 Russian trolls on minimum wages tried to swing the election for one candidate over the other. And how did they do it? By posting silly shit about Clinton on Facebook and doing so mostly after Trump had already won? Really?

For the author of this article to believe such a theory to be credible, it is necessary to also believe that Putin thought he could swing it for Trump via a state sponsored click bait campaign at a bargain basement cost to the Kremlin of just $100,000. Perhaps those donating tens of millions to the Clinton campaign should have kept their money.

Had they only known that a tiny troll farm and some pocket change was all that was needed to deliver victory to their preferred candidate, they wouldn't have allowed the Clinton campaign to piss away a billion dollars. They must feel duped. I'd be asking for a refund if I were them.

How about the media start printing the WHOLE truth: two lies don't make things better. Its all an attack to keep the truth concealed behind two fake stories competing for sheeple attention.

Posted by ronbo on 2018-10-21 09:52:13

I am gaining $46000 per 30 days by freelancing from comfort of my home you could also do the same. In office work you dont get that freedom that you really deserve, therefore office job seriously sucks. However in Internet income, you will have the freedom to enjoy your time with all your family members any time you want and also go on vacation together with them any month you wish. This is what it is about> CABLINK.TUMBLR.COM

Posted by Vilma D. Stutzman on 2018-10-21 03:54:59

The dwelling on this and other issues such as the Kavanaugh case are perfect examples of how our media is being hijacked. Primary issues affecting Main Street USA, such as the affordable housing crisis, are not being even mentioned to any degree.

Posted by beechnut79 on 2018-10-20 14:56:57

Clueless!

Posted by Stuart bailey on 2018-10-19 08:35:04

Great article Jessica! I especially agree with your central point, which is that the whole Russia thing is basically a distraction from far more pressing problems in the here-and-now.

My own take...I've never really bought into the whole 'Russia hacked the election' narrative. Yes, they tried to sway things, I have no doubt. And certain actions, such as hacking Podesta, proved to be very consequential, no matter who the perpetrator was. (Side note: The net effect of the Podesta hack was simply to shine a light on the truth.) As for hacking attempts on ballot machines, this should lead to a broader discussion about the security of the machines from intrusion by ANYONE--Russians, domestic political entities, etc. The Russian social media campaign, even if it was as alleged, was a joke. Even if we put aside the content of the ads, which as far as I can tell, wasn't really based on misinformation, there remains the fact that the amount of media coverage, both in terms of amount spent and sheer volume, VASTLY eclipses anything the Russians did.

What people aren't talking about a whole lot, because the establishment media refuses to cover it, was the evidence of voter fraud in the Democratic primaries. Also of not much interest was the rigging of the Democratic primaries, which robbed the nation of the one candidate who could have beaten Trump. Everything from the "pied piper" strategy to the outright collusion within the DNC contributed to this.